Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Faith Missions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I find the policy-based arguments for deletion to be compelling. Nothing in the "keep" seems to meet any Notability or sourcing requirements. Not all noble goals require encyclopedia articles (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Faith Missions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability can not be established as no reliable sources that are independent of the subject mention this organisation. Takeaway (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-sourced article about an established international organization. References in article appear to have already established wp:notability. รัก-ไทย (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

As to the "reliable" sources on which the article is supposedly based:

source 1 is the website of the organisation

source 2 is a scribd.com biography of the founder, self published

source 3 does not mention Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 4 does not mention Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 5 is a wikipedia article that doesn't mention Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 6 refers to the autobiography of Bob Maddox, Jimmy Carter's religious liaison, but there is no mention in the Worldwide Faith Missions article if the organisation is or isn't mentioned in the book

source 7 shows a self published photo

source 8 shows a photo and name of someone who works for the organisation in a list

source 9 refers to James Chapter 1, verse 27 (New Testament) which, although a highly regarded book, is unlikely to mention the organisation

source 10 shows the address of Worldwide Faith Missions as being part of ChristianVolunteering.org, the accompanying text "We are an evangelical missionary church organization operating Children's Homes and churches in India" suggest that it is self published

source 11 is a page of ChristianVolunteering.org explaining what it does but no mention of Worldwide Faith Missions, nor the founder

source 12 is an organisation which is run by Worldwide Faith Missions

source 13 is the organisation's own online magazine

source 14 is the organisation's own online magazine

I have looked through all 20 google pages showing hits on "worldwide faith missions". Many are mirrors of the wikipedia article or wikipedia articles into which "worldwide faith missions" has been inserted, many others are self publications, some are lists of organisations and I believe I saw one where a pastor of a church in the US hosted a talk with the founder of the organisation. This was reported on the church online newsletter. - Takeaway (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, takeway! Good job if your goal is eliminating a well-established NGO from Wikipedia.(Your comment below says you "stumbled on" this article.) But is there more to this painstaking effort than your desire to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia? Could it be that you are trying to get your “pound of flesh” for past disputes? My main field of interest and expertise in WP are religious topics and organizations. However, since I live in Thailand, I have a secondary interest in Thailand articles. I made the mistake of submitting data with which you disagree, or reverting a few of your edits. It was then that you no doubt researched MY contributions, and picked out this article about an NGO. Most of your edits are about cuisine and Thailand. I commend you for those contributions. I think most other editors are fair and unbiased. They may agree with you and chose to delete. But they should have a context for your thorough and time-taking reasons to delete. This is from your talk page:

Comments on my page I am acquainted with the information you have provided. You seem to have singled out my contributions for more reason than just editorial correction. Could you have an ulterior reason for your scrutiny of my edits? This may be covered under this section[Wikipedia:Harassment]. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC) I checked your edits way back when we had a disagreement on your censorship on the Pattaya and the Prostitution in Thailand articles. It naturally made me sceptical about your other edits, checking them for similar behaviour. I thus stumbled on to your article about Worldwide Faith Missions. It would seem that you are very closely associated with this organisation to say the least, and also, certain assertions you made on that article would seem to need citations to back them as they seem quite bold. I therefore tagged both the Worldwide Faith Missions and the related Mission of Mercy Magazine articles for conflict of interest issues and for needing additional citations for some of the content. As to you assessing the importance and quality of an article that you yourself wrote, this too is quite unusual. - Takeaway (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving Wikipedia. My time is valuable, and your constant tinkering with and changing my edits clearly constitutes harassment and a vendetta against me. Good luck in choosing your next victim. With editors like you, you will soon have a monopoly, having viewed the others that you harass. Rak-Tai from my iPhone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.109.148.63 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC) If you truly think that I am harassing you, please take it up with the moderators instead of accusing me of all sorts of things. I have only applied Wikipedia rules and regulations. Rules and regulations which are there to safeguard against censorship and conflict of interest issues from people such as you. I wish you luck in your other ventures and I hope you are more successful in getting what you want there than you have been here in Wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC) I actually lost a bet. I counted on you putting up a bit of a fight but my friend said you'd run away after having been found out. I guess I owe my friend a beer now. - Takeaway (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Put up a fight with the likes of you? This little story: There was a well-dressed man who was kicked by a jackass. He got up from the dusty road, brushed the dust off, and walked on. An onlooker asked why he didn't get angry and retaliate. He calmly replied, "I just consider the source." รัก-ไทย (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC) You are very childish in your insults. I feel very much like the well-dressed man in your story now. ;-) Bye bye! - Takeaway (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sure the other editors will make a fair and well-enlightened choice. Regards, รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, if you truly think that I am harassing you, please take it up with the moderators instead of accusing me of all sorts of things. But this AfD issue is not about me, it is about your article. I see that you still have not come up with any reliable sources to establish beyond doubt that Worldwide Faith Missions is indeed a notable NGO such as, for instance, the Thai Children's Trust is. I first started a COI procedure on your article because you seem very much involved with the whole organisation of WFM. You yourself removed the COI tag after a while, something I find a bit strange as you are the subject of the COI issue. Then I tried finding reliable sources for your article and found none. Therefore I started this AfD procedure. Can we please start talking about the article again? If you want to talk about me, this is not the place. On a side note, besides writing (in) articles and reverting vandalism, I regularly search for reliable sources for articles I take an interest in and which lack a reasonable amount of reliable sources, as is recommended in the "Refimprove" template. Anyone who would take a look at my contribution history can see that. - Takeaway (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why I initially tagged the article for COI on 9 December 2011, was because Rak-Tai himself has left a huge amount of evidence in certain edits here on Wikipedia as to who he is. The involvement of Rak-Tai in Worldwide Faith Missions is such that his interest in this article would fall under WP:PAY and WP:SELFPROMOTE, and that his edits are quite unlikely to have been written from a neutral point of view. As it is impossible to rewrite the article in such a way that it will comply to WP:NPOV due to reliable, third-party sources being non-existent (verified after an extensive search on Google), I have put up this page for WP:AfD (article deletion procedure) as being an article about a non-notable organisation. - Takeaway (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that on another AfD discussion about an article that Rak-Tai had written, he applied the same method of discussion as here, i.e. instead of supplying sources as to verify the notability of the subject as was requested, he started to discredit the person who was critical of his article, exactly as he attempted to do here regarding me. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Maas (missionary) (2nd nomination). The similarities to this AfD are stunning. - Takeaway (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this organisation have any connection to the one of the same name founded by Lee Roberson in 1948?[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem not as this Worldwide Faith Missions' own website states that it was founded in 1972 by Johannes Maas. Quote from its website: Worldwide Faith Missions was founded by Dr. Johannes Maas in 1972, following a world tour for the Wesleyan Missionary Council, for which he was the President. and also It was there that the Lord spoke to Dr. Maas that he was to care for these suffering people. The website does not state that the Lord first spoke to Lee Robertson in 1948 and that this message was later conveyed to Johannes Maas in 1972. - Takeaway (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would prefer not to take the missions' own web site at face value, because organisations in fields that are prone to internecine rivalry, such as far left politics and evangelical Christianity, have been known to massage their histories to accord with the current leadership's ideological position and/or personal vanity. It does seem, however, that in this case this is a separate organisation founded in 1972 per United States non-profit organizations in development assistance abroad. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT since (1) the activities of WFM are international, and (2) a Google Books search finds multiple reliable magazines and reference books verifying information about WFM and its activities. -- 202.124.88.47 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search that eliminates the organisation founded by Lee Roberson and books that take their content from Wikipedia gets four hits.[2] One of these is a simple juxtaposition of these three words,[3] and two are duplicate copies of the same bare mention in a directory.[4][5] That just leaves the Christian Herald as a source potentially counting towards notability.[6] Google Books only gives me a snippet view from which it's impossible to tell whether there is significant coverage, and which looks rather like an advertisement. Do you have access to the full text? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the only (possibly) reliable mention of this organisation is indeed in the Christian Herald, it is from a publication from 1977 which was 35 years ago. Nothing more recent supports its present notability. Although in WP:N#TEMP it is said that notability is not temporary, it does ask for "significant coverage". One (possible) mention 35 years ago does not seem as much "significant coverage" to me. - Takeaway (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Takeaway, we have enough of a problem with the article creator introducing irrelevant points to the discussion, so please don't do so yourself. Why, when you know that notability is not temporary, do you introduce "35 years ago" as if it was a relevant issue? Let's concentrate on the issues of the multiplicity, independence and reliability of sources and the significance of the coverage therein, on which notability depends. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is to do with how WP:N#TEMP is worded: These two sentences are of particular concern here: "..articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered." and "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Of course I am assuming here that this last sentence would also apply for organisations, not only individuals. In addition, even if that one source turns out to be reliable, Wikipedia:Notability consistently talks about "sources", not "source". Takeaway (talk) - 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reference might satisfy the demand for "sources": http://www.pittmag.pitt.edu/spring2006/homecoming.html รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mentions "multiple reliable sources", not "source". Furthermore, this one source gives very little information about the organisation. It is certainly not enough to rewrite the COI content of the article as to make it comply with NPOV. - Takeaway (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't expressed a firm opinion before today in the hope that someone would come up with some sources establishing notability, but no such sources have been forthcoming. I have double-checked Takeaway's anaysis above of the sources cited in the article and found it to be accurate, and, as I explained above, Google Books only finds one mention in the Christian Herald. That would seem to be an independent reliable publication, but it is unclear whether the mention is in editorial copy or in an advertisement, it does not appear to be significant coverage and it is only one source. The date of publication is, of course, irrelevant. I'm open to changing my mind if any more independent reliable sources are presented, but, given the barrel-scraping that happened in related discussions, that would seem unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NONPROFIT criterion 2, and Phil Bridger. Likewise, I could be convinced otherwise if more coverage in independent reliable sources is found. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT. I visited this article before to secure information about WFM and was now surprised to see it was nominated for deletion. A few points:

First, I was the VP for a commercial computer hardware company that built a factory in India a few years ago and flew there monthly. When I asked my Indian colleagues if they could direct me to an orphanage in Mumbai they said the most prominent one was operated by Worldwide Faith Missions. I visited it on one of my trips there. Hence my interest in WFM. Indeed it is notable in India and if I could read Hindi I am sure I could find many articles in Indian newspapers which had recognized this well-known international organization. Second, I read Phil Bridger's page and discovered he was contacted by takeaway and made aware of this discussion because he was the lead in deleting the article on the founder of WFM. He at first reclused himself as per canvassing (which he should have done) but now I assume that since there is such little response he went against WP rules and jumped into the discussion. Perhaps he and takeway could read wikihounding. (I got these links from Bridger's page--I am new to editing) I can only hope that the administrator who ends this Afd will be fair and unbiased and save this article. 66.213.33.2 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your contribution, anon IP. I was wondering what you thought about criterion 2 of WP:NONPROFIT, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." See also WP:IKNOWIT and WP:FARAWAY. Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recused myself until Takeaway contacted the editors who gave "keep" opinions at the previous AfDs, and only commented after he had done so. To twist the good faith that I displayed by this into an accusation of the opposite is unchristian, to say the least. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that the "keep" of the last anon IP would fall under the guideline mentioned in WP:DPAFD as being a "keep" recommendation from a meatpuppet, or perhaps even from a sockpuppet. This IP address is from the Ohio Public Library Information Network, and apart from a long list of mostly vandalism and test edits (see here), this IP has of late suddenly taken an interest in two disputes in which Rak-Tai has been involved. This one here, and a dispute about the proposed deletion of the Diane Macedo article (see the edit of d.d. 9 June 2012 at User_talk:Evans1982#Proposed_deletion_of_Diane_Macedo), a WP:PROD which was initiated by Rak-Tai. It is notable that this IP edited User:Evan1982's talk page less than 2 hours after Rak-Tai did. It is also notable that Worldwide Faith Missions is registered in Ohio. - Takeaway (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability, and quite frankly, I'm not seeing any of those prongs being met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Editor 202.124.88.47. Notability sources not as stringent as with persons. This is definitely about an international organization. 99.109.48.190 (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You, 66.213.33.2 and the Worldwide Faith Missions headquarters are all neighbours. Maybe you should arrange a get-together? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this sarcasm is worthy of a comment. One would expect that "neighbors" would have an interest in the discussion. Does Bridger propose that we ban comments from Ohio? Or perhaps all of America. รัก-ไทย (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the so-called "neighbours" who are both from Akron, Ohio, to suddenly show an interest after never having been involved in any way, please read WP:DPAFD. And yes, per WP:DPAFD it is possible to stop people from involving themselves in this debate. Rak-Tai's remark is even more surprising, seeing how one of these so-called "neighbours" accused other people here of canvassing earlier in the debate. - Takeaway (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.